ÿWPCY …# VU:a %› 0@¡w@á4! 5 D 0„L 0DÐ  0J 0Td 0^¸ 0h 0r~ 0|ð 0†l 0ò 1u‚ 0d÷ U6[B)‘DCº Bý AMU*g,‘ D3½3ðv~# 0@¡vÓá AO´Æ 0DÉ D/  B<˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ<Ô6X9`+"Courier 10cpiX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó TUVDWXYEZ[D\]D^Ó€ ƒØ"3|xi(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd d€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJuly€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxd )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€are€not€concerned€with€the€designation€or€title€attached€to€theÏcause€of€action.€We€are€more€concerned€that€all€the€necessary€elements€areÏalleged.€€"Reviewing€courts€must€always€look€to€the€substance€of€the€chal…lenged€complaint€rather€than€its€form."€€òòUsrey›€v.€Lewisóó,€553€S.W.2d€612,€614Ï(Tenn.€App.€1977);€òòœKaylor›€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728€(Tenn.€App.€1995).óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ 4 ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÈXXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€')%A1-j| ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌPRICE€&€PRICE€MECHANICAL,€INC.,€)à àHAMBLEN€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9612„CH„00402Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€BEN€K.€WEXLERÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLOR,€BY€INTERCHANGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌJAMES€EDWARD€HALE€and€HALE€€€€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€INC.,€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€œDefendants„Appellees›€€)ÌÌÌÌÌW.€GARY€BLACKBURN€&€MICHELLE€JONES€LONG,€Blackburn,€œSlobey›,€Free…man€&€œHappell›,€P.C.,€Nashville,€for€appellant.ÌÌÌROBERT€A.€CRAWFORD,€Carpenter€&€œO'Conner›,€Knoxville,€for€appel…lees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€case€is€before€the€court€on€an€extraordinary€appealÏpursuant€to€Rule€10,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€TheÏsole€issue€which€we€are€called€upon€to€decide€is€whether€TennesseeÏrecognizes€the€tort€of€"intentional€interference€with€prospectiveÏeconomic€advantage"€€(The€tort).€€The€trial€court€dismissed€theÏœplaintiff's€claim›€on€the€premise€that€Tennessee€does€not€recognizeÏthe€tort,€citing€òòKultura,€Inc.,€v.€Southern€œLeasingóó,€923€S.W.2d›Ï536,€(Tenn.€1996),€quoting€from€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€v.€Bluff€CityÏBuickóó,€876€S.W.2d€818,€823€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€has€neither€expressly€rejected€the€tort€norÏexpressly€embraced€it.€€In€òòQuality€Auto€Partsóó,€the€court€didÏdefine€the€elements€that€make€up€the€tort€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMost€jurisdictions€and€commentators€agree€the€tortÏis€composed€of€the€following€elements:€(1)€the€existenceÏof€a€business€relationship€or€expectancy€(an€existingÏcontract€is€not€required);€(2)€knowledge€by€the€inter…ferer€of€the€relationship€or€expectancy;€(3)€an€inten…tional€act€of€interference;€(4)€proof€that€the€interfer…ence€caused€the€harm€sustained;€and€(5)€damage€to€theÏplaintiff.€òòIdóó.,€5€œA.L.R.4th›€at€ðð€œ2[a›],€p.€16;€òòsee€alsoóóÏòòœCrandall›€Corp.€v.€œNavistar›€Internóó.,€302€S.C.€265,€395ÏœS.E.2d›€179€(S.C.€1990);€òòCommodore€v.€University€Mechani…cal€œContr›óó.,€120€Wash.€2d€120,€839€P.2d€314€(Wash€1992).ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àThe€court€determined€that€òòQuality€Auto€Parts'óó€claim€must€failÏbecause€the€complaint€did€not€allege€two€essential€elements€of€theÏtort€ð"ð€(1)€the€existence€of€a€specific€prospective€employmentÏrelationship€and€(2)€knowledge€by€Quality€of€such€a€relationship.€ÏThe€court€then€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€conclude€that€the€question€of€whether€TennesseeÏrecognizes€the€tort€of€intentional€interference€withÏprospective€economic€advantage€should€be€postponed€toÏanother€day€when€we€are€squarely€presented€with€a€caseÏin€which€all€of€the€elements€of€the€tort€have€beenÏalleged€or€otherwise€established.€...ÌÌòòòòIdóó,€page€823.óóÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ ` ܇X2È“X Óà àThe€court€in€òòKultura,€Incóó.,€supra,€neither€accepted€norÏrejected€the€tort,€observing€that€no€damages€had€been€shown.€ÏThereafter,€this€court€in€òòNew€Life€Corp.€v.€Thomas€Nelson,€Incóó.,Ï932€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€App.€œ1996,€permission›€to€appeal€denied€JulyÏ1,€1996),€reversed€a€œsummary›€judgment€which€had€been€entered€inÏfavor€of€the€defendant€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€a€trial€on€the€merits.ÌÌà àIn€discussing€the€issue€the€court€pointed€out:Ìà0 àÌÓÓà8 àà à...€In€òòœKan›€Const.€&€Cleaning€Corp.€v.€œTatum›óó,€NoÏœ01A01›„9304„CV„00150,€1993€WL€434741€(Tenn.€App.€œW.S.›,ÏOct€27€1993,€the€court€stated:ÌÌà0 àà8 àà àThe€elements€of€the€tort€of€interference€withÏbusiness€relations€are€also€set€out€in€45€œAmJur›.2dÏòòInterferenceóó€50€(1969).ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àThe€basic€elements€which€establish€a€primaÏfacie€tortious€interference€with€a€business€rela…tionship€are€the€existence€of€a€valid€businessÏrelation€(not€necessarily€evidenced€by€an€enforce…able€contract)€or€expectancy;€knowledge€of€theÏrelationship€or€expectancy€on€the€part€of€theÏinterferer;€an€intentional€interference€inducing€orÏcausing€a€breach€or€termination€of€the€relationshipÏor€expectancy;€and€resultant€damage€to€the€partyÏwhose€relationship€or€expectancy€has€been€disrupt…ed.€ÌÌ€ÌÌÓÓà àWe€are€unable€to€make€a€meaningful€distinction€between€òòQuali…ty€Auto€Partsóó€and€òòNew€Life€Corpóó.,€insofar€as€the€elements€of€theÏtort€are€concerned.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„settled€law€that€the€Supreme€Court€is€not€bound€byÏa€decision€of€an€intermediate€appellate€court€even€when€certiorariÏor€permission€to€appeal€is€denied.€As€explained€by€Chief€JusticeÏGrafton€Green,€in€òòBryan€v.€œAetna›€Life€œIns.Co›óó.,€174€Tenn.€602,€130ÏS.W.2d€85€(1939):€€"We€have€repeatedly€pointed€out€that€a€mereÏdenial€by€this€court€of€a€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€does€not€commit€us€to€all€the€views€expressed€in€a€partic…ular€opinion.€We€are€primarily€concerned€on€such€application€withÍthe€result€reached."€174€œTenn.€at›€611,€130€S.W.2d€at€88.€€WeighingÏonly€the€result€in€òòNew€Life€Corpóó.€in€the€light€of€òòQuality€AutoÏPartsóó,€a€compellingly€persuasive€argument€is€made€that€the€SupremeÏCourt€has€implicitly€recognized€the€tort.€€We€are€of€the€opinionÏthat€the€tort€is€now€recognized€in€this€jurisdiction€and€so€hold.Ìà àUpon€consideration€of€the€entire€complaint,€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€sufficient€facts€have€been€alleged€which,€if€true,Ïsatisfy€the€requirements€of€both€òòQuality€Auto€Partsóó€and€œòòNew›€œLifeóó,›Ïœsupra.›€€We€acknowledge€that€damages€have€been€plead€with€littleÏspecificity.€€We€believe,€however,€that€under€the€relaxed€reƒquirements€for€pleading€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Proce…dure,€that€the€defendants€have€been€placed€on€sufficient€notice€toÏmake€them€aware€of€the€claims€against€them.€€Further:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€also€believe€that€...€there€is€no€longer€anyÏneed€for€particularized€damage€pleading.€As€we€noted€inÏòòœHandley›€v.€œMayóó,€[588›€S.W.2d€772,€774,„76€Tenn.€App.Ï1979]€the€purpose€of€pleading€under€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure€is€to€notify€the€defendant€of€theÏclaims€against€him.€€There€are€any€number€of€devices,Ïincluding€a€motion€for€more€definite€statement€and€theÏvarious€discovery€procedures,€that€enable€parties€toÏclarify€the€claims€against€them.€Nothing€requires€aÏplaintiff€to€plead€all€damages€with€more€exactness€andÏspecificity€than€that€required€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure.€œ[The€plaintiff's]€complaint›€meets€theÏstandards€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.€It€gave€the€defendantsÏsufficient€notice€of€the€type€of€damages€claimed€to€beÏsuffered.€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€complaint€wasÏproper.€ÌÌòòEvans€v.€Nashville€Banner€Publishing€Coóó.,€1988€Tenn.€App.€LEXISÏ638.ÌÌÓÓÌà àœHaving€now›€reached€the€conclusions€that€the€tort€has€beenÏadopted€in€Tennessee€and€that€the€plaintiff's€œcomplaint›€states€aÏcause€of€action€for€tortious€interference€with€a€business€rela…tionship,€we€must€œexamine›€the€propriety€of€the€trial€court'sÏaction€in€granting€œdefendants'€motion€for›€judgment€on€this€issue.œ× ƒ+ ××  ×›€ÌÌà àWe€first€note€that€the€complaint€contains€two€counts.€€One€isÏfor€defamation€and€the€second€is€for€tortious€interference€with€aÏbusiness€relationship.€€The€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€on€both€counts.€€The€motion€for€summary€judgment€relatingÏto€defamation€was€premised€upon€the€plaintiff's€inability€to€proveÏdamages€caused€by€the€alleged€defamatory€statements.€€The€motion,Ïas€to€that€count€was€overruled.€€As€to€the€count€for€tortiousÏinterference€with€a€business€relationship,€the€defendants'€motionÏsimply€stated€"a€cause€of€action€for€interference€with€a€prospec…tive€economic€advantage€is€not€a€recognized€cause€of€action€underÏthe€laws€of€this€state."€€No€claim€is€made€(as€to€either€count)Íthat€"there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact."€€òòSeeóóÏRule€56.03,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€œProcedure.€€We€feel€that€itÏis€informative€to€set€out€the€material€parts€of€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€The€motion,€in€pertinent€part,€is€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à...€[A]s€grounds€for€this€motion,€the€defendantsÏwould€show€unto€the€court€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à(1)à àAny€damage€incurred€by€the€plaintiff€was€not€causedÏby€the€alleged€defamatory€statements€of€JamesÏEdward€Hale;ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à(2)à àA€cause€of€action€for€interference€with€a€proƒspective€economic€advantage€is€not€a€recognizedÏcause€of€action€under€the€laws€of€this€state;€andÌÌà8 àà0 àà à(3)à àThe€plaintiff€has€not€suffered,€and€cannot€prove,Ïthat€he€incurred€damages€as€a€result€of€the€allegedÏdefamatory€statements€of€James€Edward€Hale.ÌÌÓÓ›Ìà àDuring€oral€argument€before€this€court,€the€appellees€œdevotedÏmuch€of€their€argument€and€strongly€directed€our€attention€to€theÏlack›€of€a€showing€of€damages€by€the€plaintiff€in€response€to€theÏdefendants'€motion€for€summary€œjudgment.€€We€note€however,€thatÏthe€trial€court€in€granting€the€motion,€did€so€purely€as€a€matterÏof€lawÔ% € Ô,€relying€upon€òòKultura,€Incóó.,€supra€and€òòQuality€Auto€Partsóó,Ïsupra.€€Specifically,€the€court,€in€its€memorandum€opinion€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€court€is€of€the€opinion,€as€to€the€issue€ofÏintentional€interference€with€prospective€economicÍadvantage€that€this€is€not€a€recognized€cause€of€actionÏin€Tennessee.€€[Citing€òòKulturaóó,€›supra.]ÌÌÓ ` ܇XçÈ“X ÓÌÓÓà àSince€the€basis€of€the€defendants'€motion€for€summary€œjudg…ment,€as€set€out€above,›€was€purely€a€question€of€œlaw›€not€directedÏtoward€"undisputed€material€facts",€the€plaintiff€had€no€noticeÏthat€he€would€be€called€upon€to€demonstrate€damages€as€to€theÏsecond€count.€€œFurther,€with€no€such€ground€stated€in€the€motion,›Ïhe€was€under€no€obligation€to€do€œso.€€We€are€not€at€liberty€toÏpresume€or€assume€that€the€evidence€found€in€the€record€before€usÏis€all€of€the€evidence€that€the€plaintiff€is€able€to€produce€onÏthis€issue.›ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€court's€reviewÏof€a€trial€court's€action€on€a€motion€for€summary€à àjudg…ment€are€well€settled.€Since€our€inquiry€involves€purelyÏa€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctness€atta…ches€to€the€trial€court's€judgment,€and€our€task€isÏconfined€to€reviewing€the€record€to€determine€whetherÏthe€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.ÏòòœCowden›€v.€œSovran›€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744Ï(Tenn.€1991).€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03€provides€thatÏsummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€isÏno€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€factsÏrelevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€mo…tion,€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);Ïand€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€asÏmatter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€òòAnderson€v.ÏStandard€Register€œCoóó.,€857›€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.€1993).ÏThe€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€itsÏmotion€satisfies€these€requirements.€òòœDownen›€v.€AllstateÏIns.€Coóó.,€811€S.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌòòœCarvell›€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€œ1995).Ì›ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€œdefendants,›€the€moving€par…ties,€have€failed€to€meet€the€burden€of€proving€that€their€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€satisfies€the€requirements€set€out€œabove€andÏthat€they€are€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.›€€According…ly,€we€find€that€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€not€haveÏbeen€granted.ÌÌà àWe€do€not€express€any€opinion€on€the€merits€of€any€issue,Ïother€than€to€hold€that€the€œdefendants,›€œbased€upon€the€recordÏbefore€us,€are›€not€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€œlaw.›€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€granting€the€motion€for€summary€judg…ment€is€reversed.ÌÌà àCosts€are€assessed€to€the€appellees€and€this€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€such€other€and€further€action€as€may€beÏrequired,€consistent€with€the€opinion€of€this€court.̛̜ÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Special€JudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€5XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌPRICE€&€PRICE€MECHANICAL,€INC.,€)à àHAMBLEN€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9612„CH„00402Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€BEN€K.€WEXLERÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLOR,€BY€INTERCHANGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌJAMES€EDWARD€HALE€and€HALE€€€€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌCONSTRUCTION€COMPANY,€INC.,€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€œDefendants„Appellees›€€)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Hamblen€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinion€that€thereÏwas€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€Costs€areÏassessed€to€the€appellees€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÍcourt€for€such€other€and€further€action€as€may€be€required,€con…sistent€with€the€opinion€of€this€court.Ìœ›Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€œCURIAM›